EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29646. November 10, 1978.]

MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS , petitioner, vs. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO

HO and JUDGE FRANCISCO ARCA , respondents.

Angel C . Cruz, Gregorio A. Ejercito, Felix C . Chaves & Jose Laureta for petitioner.
Sotero H . Laurel for respondents.

DECISION

FERNANDEZ , J : p

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision dated September 17, 1968
of respondent Judge Francisco Arca of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, in
Civil Case No. 72797, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and
against the respondents, declaring Ordinance No. 6537 of the City of Manila null
and void. The preliminary injunction is hereby made permanent. No
pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, September 17, 1968.
(SGD.) FRANCISCO ARCA

Judge" 1

The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of
Manila on February 22, 1968 and signed by the herein petitioner Mayor Antonio J.
Villegas of Manila on March 27, 1968. 2
City Ordinance No. 6537 is entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT A
CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT OR TO BE ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR
OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST SECURING AN
EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES." 3

Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 4 prohibits aliens from being employed or
to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein,
whether permanent, temporary or casual, without rst securing an employment permit
from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons
employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical
assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government,
and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind. cdrep

Violations of this ordinance is punishable by an imprisonment of not less than

three (3) months to six (6) months or ne of not less than P100.00 but not more than
P200.00 or both such fine and imprisonment, upon conviction. 5
On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, who was employed
in Manila, led a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I,
denominated as Civil Case No. 72797, praying for the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of Ordinance No. 6637 as well
as for a judgment declaring said Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. 6
In this petition, Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho assigned the following as his grounds for
wanting the ordinance declared null and void:
1) As a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of
Manila, Ordinance No. 6537 is discriminatory and violative of the rule of the
uniformity in taxation;
2) As a police power measure, it makes no distinction between useful and
non-useful occupations, imposing a xed P50.00 employment permit, which is
out of proportion to the cost of registration and that it fails to prescribe' any
standard to guide and/or limit the action of the Mayor, thus, violating the
fundamental principle on illegal delegation of legislative powers:

3) It is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens

who are thus, deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore,
violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. 7

On May 24, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction and
on September 17, 1968 rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void
and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction.8
Contesting the aforecited decision of respondent Judge, then Mayor Antonio J.
Villegas led the present petition on March 27, 1969. Petitioner assigned the following
as errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge in the latter's decision of
September 17, 1968: 9
"I.

THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR

OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE CARDINAL RULE
OF UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION.

II.

RESPONDENT JUDGE LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE AND PATENT

ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE
PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNDUE DESIGNATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.

III.

RESPONDENT JUDGE FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR

OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS
AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION."

Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 cannot be declared
null and void on the ground that it violated the rule on uniformity of taxation because the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 rule on uniformity of taxation applies only to purely tax or revenue measures and that
Ordinance No. 6537 is not a tax or revenue measure but is an exercise of the police
power of the state, it being principally a regulatory measure in nature.cdll

The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure
because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that
the rst part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the
Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and approval
or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in
character the second part which requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is
not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justi cation in exacting
P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the
purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation.
The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it
fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who
are required to pay it. Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not
forbid classi cation, it is imperative that the classi cation, should be based on real and
substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular
legislation. The same amount of P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien,
whether he is casual or permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly
employee or a highly paid executive.
Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the
Mayor in the exercise of his discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a
municipality fails to state any policy or to set up any standard to guide or limit the
mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit, enumerates
no conditions for its grant or refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon
the Mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building
permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an unde ned and unlimited delegation of
power to allow or prevent an activity per se lawful. 1 0
In Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 1 1 where a
law granted a government agency power to determine the allocation of wheat our
among importers, the Supreme Court ruled against the interpretation of uncontrolled
power as it vested in the administrative o cer an arbitrary discretion to be exercised
without a policy, rule, or standard from which it can be measured or controlled.
It was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso 1 2 that the authority and discretion to
grant and refuse permits of all classes conferred upon the Mayor of Manila by the
Revised Charter of Manila is not uncontrolled discretion but legal discretion to be
exercised within the limits of the law.
Ordinance No. 6537 is void because it does not contain or suggest any standard
or criterion to guide the mayor in the exercise of the power which has been granted to
him by the ordinance.
The ordinance in question violates the due process of law and equal protection
rule of the Constitution.
Requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City
Mayor of Manila who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the
basic right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. While it is
true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory,
once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. This
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 guarantee includes the means of livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due
process and equal protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens. 1 3
The trial court did not commit the errors assigned. LLpr

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby a rmed, without

pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Santos, and Guerrero, JJ ., concur.
Castro, C . J ., Antonio and Aquino, JJ ., concur in the result.
Concepcion Jr., J ., took no part.

Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J ., concurring :

I concur in the decision penned by Mr. Justice Fernandez which a rms the lower
court's judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 of the City of Manila null and void for
the reason that the employment of aliens within the country is a matter of national
policy and regulation, which properly pertain to the national government o cials and
agencies concerned and not to local governments, such as the City of Manila, which
after all are mere creations of the national government. aisa dc

The national policy on the matter has been determined in the statutes enacted by
the legislature, viz, the various Philippine nationalization laws which on the whole
recognize the right of aliens to obtain gainful employment in the country with the
exception of certain speci c elds and areas. Such national policies may not be
interfered with, thwarted or in any manner negated by any local government or its
o cials since they are not separate from and independent of the national government.
LibLex

As stated by the Court in the early case of Phil. Coop . Livestock Ass'n. vs.
Earnshaw, 59 Phil. 129: "The City of Manila is a subordinate body to the Insular
(National Government . . . ). When the Insular (National) Government adopts a policy, a
municipality is without legal authority to nullify and set at naught the action of the
superior authority." Indeed, "not only must all municipal powers be exercised within the
limits of the organic laws, but they must be consistent with the general law and public
policy of the particular state . . . " (I McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2nd sec. 367, p.
1011).
With more reason are such national policies binding on local governments when
they involve our foreign relations with other countries and their nationals who have been
lawfully admitted here, since in such matters the views and decisions of the Chief of
State and of the legislature must prevail over those of subordinate and local
governments and o cials who have no authority whatever to take o cial acts to the
contrary.
Fernando, J ., concurs.

Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 1. Annex "F", Petition, Rollo, p. 64.
2. Petition, Rollo, p. 28.

3. Annex "A" of Petition, Rollo, pp. 37-38.

4. Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person not a citizen of the Philippines to be employed
in any kind of position or occupation or allowed directly or indirectly to participate in the
functions, administration or management in any o ce, corporation, store, restaurant,
factory, business rm, or any other place of employment either as consultant, adviser,
clerk, employee, technician, teacher, actor, actress, acrobat, singer or other theatrical
performer, laborer, cook, etc., whether temporary, casual, permanent or otherwise and
irrespective of the source or origin of his compensation or number of hours spent in said
o ce, store, restaurant, factory, corporation or any other place of employment, or to
engage in any kind of business and trade within the City of Manila, without rst securing
an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila, and paying the necessary fee therefor
to the City the City Treasurer: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That persons employed in
diplomatic and consular missions of foreign countries and in technical assistance
programs agreed upon by the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and
those working in their respective households, and members of different congregations or
religious orders of any religion, sect or denomination, who are not paid either monetarily
or in kind shall be exempted from the provisions of this Ordinance.
5. Section 4. Any violation of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punished by
imprisonment of not less than three (3) months but not more than six (6) months or by a
ne of not less than one hundred pesos (P100.00) but not more than two hundred pesos
(P200.00), or by both such ne and imprisonment, in the discretion of the Court:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That in case of juridical persons, the President, the Vice President
or the person in charge shall be liable.

6. Annex "B ", Petition, Rollo, p. 39.

7. Ibid.

8. Annex "F", Petition, Rollo, pp. 75-83.

9. Petition, Rollo, p. 31.
10. People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443, 446.

11. 89 Phil. 439, 459-460.

12. 80 Phil. 86.

13. Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila, 41 Phil. 103.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com